Help me convince my players that the Cleric is cool

[just__al]

Yikes. Thats a halfling god to boot, aint it?

You are thinking of Yondalla.

But my group has a halfling cleric (some FR god I can't remember). He is so weak (physically) that we carried his healing kit for him until we found a bag of holding (or was it a Hewards Handy Haversack I can't remember). He is very creative with his clerical spells and since he has a wand or two tucked away he seldom if ever bothers to convert a spell to healing). Not a combat monkey though. That duty falls to the TWF ranger, my dwarven Fighter/Rogue and the special guest start Paladin (who isn't with us currently).

 

[rowport]

There are some other viable options, if your players do not want to play a cleric but you feel that healing is necessary (probably right about that..!). A Bard could get a Wand of Cure Light Wounds to supplement his limited Cure spells, but focus on his other talents. A Druid could take the Spontaneous Healer feat from Complete Divine to be able to heal in a pinch, but otherwise again focus on his other talents. A Paladin could use a wand or scrolls of CLW, but only after a few more levels. You could even try a Witch (from the DMG) who would also have cure spells on her arcane spell list along with lots of enchantments. Heck, call it a 'Warlock' for a male PC.

 

[Numion]

You are thinking of Yondalla.

Yup, Ehlonna is a forest something. Don't know the domains so it would be hard to get it 'tricked out'

But my group has a halfling cleric (some FR god I can't remember). He is so weak (physically) that we carried his healing kit for him until we found a bag of holding (or was it a Hewards Handy Haversack I can't remember). He is very creative with his clerical spells and since he has a wand or two tucked away he seldom if ever bothers to convert a spell to healing). Not a combat monkey though. That duty falls to the TWF ranger, my dwarven Fighter/Rogue and the special guest start Paladin (who isn't with us currently).

I guess thats the point of the power-up in clerics from 2e -> 3e. They are playable in the healing mode too, there's enough oomph even if you 'waste' spells in healing others. The problems start when a cleric is made into combat monster by applying all that oomph into combat prowess.

Thats somewhat fixed in 3.5e as the buffs have lost some duration and utility.

 

[Furtive Noise]

I've never seen clerics buffing themselves up with combat spells to be all that effective. The armored war cleric in our game often spends several rounds of a fight buffing himself with the usual array of spells, then must move his slow self into combat. Of course, the rest of the party is now beat up and he ends up having to heal us to stay alive instead of wading in with full attacks as he would like. Maybe it would be more effective if we could buff right before a fight, but that rarely seems to happen. Anyone else have this happen to their war clerics?

That said, he's still one of the most powerful important party members, and clerics are lots of fun. Theres lots of archetypes to play with besides the 'armored knight-templar' approach. Another group of mine had a cleric of Waukeen and although he wouldn't charge for healing, he'd spruce up dungeons and long lost towers after dungeon crawls and sell them to wizards and nobles. Rich, he also lends out loans (w/ interest) to other party members, so that now half the party is in debt to him.

I'd say figure out what you're players want to play, then make a campaign around that instead of planning out around a forest-cleric npc that no one wants.

 

[Trainz]

I thank you all again for all the good replies.

Some of you seem to assume that I have no idea of what I'm doing. I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I have all my marbles counted for.

Never before have I asked my players to play such a specific character. You can bet there is a damn good reason for it. You guys do not know why this is so. AS I have mentioned in my previous post.

Listen, there are DM's that do all-humanoid, all racial (like elves), or all one alignment campaign. Why ? Because they have a campaign concept that INSPIRES them. Which means, they will have a better drive to create interesting adventures. Asking one of the PC's (ANY one) to play a certain class is no different than that.

In the past, I have joined gaming groups in mid campaign telling the DM "What would you like me to play ?" to which he might reply "Well, actually, we could really use a wizard" and then I would proceed to roll a wizard and have a blast because: A- The campaign his so conceived that I find my use quite often or B- There is a gap in some of the party's parameters which I fulfill more than my share.

So there.

 

[Vlos]

I had the same problem. I joined a campaign with established characters, none of which were a Cleric or healer type. They all wanted me to play a healer/cleric.

I was not too fond of playing one, and in fact never played a cleric more than a few sessions.

But I picked the Shaman from Oriental Adventures. At Higher levels I took the Shapeshifter (from AO) which is pretty balanced compared to the one in ToB. Its a pretty decent character.

Also when I am in combat and someone needs healing, I have them come to me (as we are usually spread out). When they are ready, if I am ready (i.e.: I have nothing better to do that round) I heal them. Most times they wait a round or two.

It is a lot of fun and probably one of my more memorable characters now. Yes I do have to heal the party, but with spontaneous healing its not all that bad.

 

[just__al]

I thank you all again for all the good replies.

Some of you seem to assume that I have no idea of what I'm doing. I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I have all my marbles counted for.

Never before have I asked my players to play such a specific character. You can bet there is a damn good reason for it. You guys do not know why this is so. AS I have mentioned in my previous post.

Listen, there are DM's that do all-humanoid, all racial (like elves), or all one alignment campaign. Why ? Because they have a campaign concept that INSPIRES them. Which means, they will have a better drive to create interesting adventures. Asking one of the PC's (ANY one) to play a certain class is no different than that.

In the past, I have joined gaming groups in mid campaign telling the DM "What would you like me to play ?" to which he might reply "Well, actually, we could really use a wizard" and then I would proceed to roll a wizard and have a blast because: A- The campaign his so conceived that I find my use quite often or B- There is a gap in some of the party's parameters which I fulfill more than my share.

So there.

Way back in the 2e days we all showed up for a new campaign. The DM asked that we all play characters of the same class.

We talked amoungst ourselves and decided upon fighter. The DM blinked and looked at us.

"Fighter?"

"Yep"

"Ok, we'll start in 3 weeks, chargen in two, let's go get chinese, I'm buying"

The DM had figured we would either pick wizard, thief or maybe cleric. He had to totally redo most of what he had planned.

It was an awesome campaign. We didn't encounter a single wizard until we met the BBEG. He was spreading rumors that a woman outside of town was a witch and responsible for all the random trouble that was happening. We organized a mob and burned her at the stake. Then with the good aligned cleric out of the way, he was able to take over the town. We had a lot of cleaning up to do and we were never able to get her raised since there weren't any high level casters around anywhere.

 

[Mr. Kaze]

How to avoid healing duties: Use Negative/Rebuke instead of Positive/Turn. It works great. And your party will love beating the snot out of skeletons and such that would've been trying to run away if the cleric had turned them -- but instead he rebuked them, so they're just going to stay there in a cowering state of mind for 10 rounds or until they're pounded to dust.

I swear that the entire Turn/Rebuke thing makes no sense to me at all. Turning, okay. But why oh why, if I were undead, would I ever stand around being beat up by the friends of some clown who isn't powerful to actually command me?

::Kaze

 

[Arnwyn]

What argument would you use ?

"Suit yourself. Have fun adventuring with no healing!" (Unfortunately that's all I'd have to say in such circumstances... I have long since stopped caring what my players choose to play, and let them live with the consequences of their decisions. I understand you have some specific plans, but I can't be of much help, there.)

Honestly, my expectation as a player is that I'll be able to play what I want and the DM will make sure the campaign takes into account the characters that he does have,

Indeed. And as a DM, I expect my players to pursue adventures that are appropriate for their party make-up. (No cleric? Hope you guys weren't planning on tomb-raiding or dungeon crawling! For example.)

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Railroading Kills Campaigns

Never before have I asked my players to play such a specific character. You can bet there is a damn good reason for it. You guys do not know why this is so. AS I have mentioned in my previous post.

In the past, I have joined gaming groups in mid campaign telling the DM "What would you like me to play ?" to which he might reply "Well, actually, we could really use a wizard" and then I would proceed to roll a wizard and have a blast because: A- The campaign his so conceived that I find my use quite often or B- There is a gap in some of the party's parameters which I fulfill more than my share.

There is nothing wrong with being the "filler" in the party. In fact, I typically enjoy being such a character (i.e., a cleric) because I know that my presence will be appreciated by everyone at the table (DM included).

However, if my DM told me that I only had a choice of ONE class, ONE gender, and ONE deity, I would seriously consider gaming elsewhere.

You see ... for me, the D&D game is about character "agency". PCs should be able to take creative actions and make decisions which matter, without feeling like they are mere puppets for the DM's plot.

If my DM had such uber-specific requirements as were mentioned above, I would be inclined to believe that my character would always be second-place to their storyline no matter what I did.

Now, while I respect the freedom of DMs to adopt the so-called "storyteller" style, I can tell you from personal experience (regarding a DM we ejected from our gaming group) that it will alienate your players and cause resentment amongst friends.

Let's face it. If a DM's plot is so dependent on specific things happening (e.g., the need for a female cleric of Ehlonna in the party), then they should spend their time writing a great fantasy novel; they should not spend their time holding players hostage to a game where they feel disempowered from day one.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the term I'm looking for is "railroading".

D&D is a cooperative venture. Alienating your players by severely limiting their choice of character (i.e., a litmus test for "railroading") will leave you with one of three things:

You will have a table of disinterested gamers who stay because they cannot find another game.

OR ...

You will have a table of resentful friends who feel like you are wasting their time and are actually considering giving up on RPGs.

OR ...

You will have an empty table.